So, basically, you reached your belief in reincarnation without using logic, and now you’re trying to fumble with different difficult-to-understand areas of science in an attempt to find something that will lend weight to your admittedly illogical belief. Is that about right?
Sorry, but for science to examine something, you need a little bit more than “I’m positive that it’s true even though I have no evidence, so it should be studied more.” Before we can begin to scientifically examine reincarnation, we need something to actually, you know, examine. At the very least, there should be some falsifiable predictions that your “theory of reincarnation” makes that we can put under the microscope.
As things stand, however, you’re grasping at straws.
i used to believe this and i came to conclusion that that was a very sad way to be going about life. if nothing exists beyond what my brain has recorded then frankly i would rather be dead. so what do i do? kill myself? i was going to, but i figured i would at the very least make sure that the end is the end.
On the subject of dark matter, I present the cover story of Discover magazine, October 2003.
Other probes besides Pioneer are also exhibiting such unexpected motion. Apparently, a slight modification of Newton’s equation, applied to microgravity environments, accurately explains the motion of galaxies and the probes. I’ll dig up specifics when the SDMB isn’t engaged in its daily backup.
Now as to the argument that it is anecdotal and not empirical, let me first provide a little background by describing the scientific study of reincarantion as I understand it. The first step is cataloguing the subject’s memories and other information (e.g. names, places, dates). Once that is done, the next step is to search for any kind of proof that shows such a person actually existed. If record of such a person is found, the case is investigated further so as to determine how much of the subject’s memories and facts corroborate with the facts of the person in question. This may include analysis of handwriting, which is often identical; analysis of birthmarks, which often correspond to the site of a fatal injury, and in many cases the subject is reunited with his/her prior family. Dr. Stevenson alone has investigated and confirmed thousands of cases.
In theory it is possible to experiment on just about anything. In the process of investigating a case, the subject may be given some information about the other family that is correct and some that is incorrect, to determine if he or she can separate the truth from the fallacy.
As for providing evidence that any kind of non-corporeal consciousness 1.) exists, and 2.) makes the transition from one person to another, it is first necessary to devise a means of detecting consciousness. We don’t know what consciousness is yet, in fact there is a debate going on in this thread about the nature of consciousness. Until one can detect it, there will be only anecdotal evidence.
Still, must science reject all anecdotal evidence? What about the “Wow!” Signal detected in 1977 by the Big Ear Radio Observatory? Does it prove that there s extraterrestrial life? No. Should science ignore it completely? No. Or what about every nova or supernova type event? What about gamma ray bursts or the occasional high-energy particle that is detected slamming into our atmosphere? Those are non-repeatable, and just as anecdotal as any reincarnation case.
Okay, I promised more info on the dark matter thing. Israeli physicist Moti Milgrom claims that modifying Newton’s laws of gravity so that below a certain amount of gravitational acceleration, the force of gravity might be proportional to the square of the acceleration rather than to the acceleration itself. (This is how it is explained in the Discover article, which is a bit too layman-ish for me and doesn’t give enough information about the equations themselves.) In fact, according to the article, Milgrom’s equation gives figures that are exactly in agreement with the observed motions of galaxies without the need for dark matter.
Oh and how is it that this thread has 2 unrelated topics?
Sorry, I really should have clarified that. Being that the OP and the conversation up to that point seemed a physics question, I meant to say that no physicist (or for that matter, chemist, biologist, etc) could study it in a scientific manner - by its nature, reincarnation (and most paranormal “events”) cannot be proven or disproven with certainty, and so physical experiments, mathematical calculations, etc. are useless.
That’s not to say that the supposed phenomenon of reincarnation does not warrant physchological study. The problem I have with most “scientists” who study reincarnation or other so-called “paranormal” events, is that they have already formed their conclusion and are looking for supporting evidence. Of the links you provided above, the only “scientist” who does not seem to be in the regression therapy business is Stevenson, but even with him, since he focuses on the study of paranormal events, it’s likely he’d drawn his conclusions long ago, and he knows where his bread and butter is.
Of course the elephant in the room when talking about regression “experiments” is that the vast majority of published test subjects are children (between the ages of 2-5, so sayeth Dr. Stevenson, Dr. Woolger). Children are very easily manipulated in to telling you whatever you want to hear - a while ago, my 3 1/2 year old daughter said something about “before I was born, I was a boy”. I thought this was odd, and so gently questioned her about this; I didn’t really get anywhere, it was just one of those odd things kids say that makes them so damn cute. But I could have easily steered her to further describe her “memories” in great detail.
An even bigger elephant in the room is that if past life memories can be confirmed with certainty using the methods you describe, why has this remained on the fringe of science? James Randi is offering $1m to anyone who can prove any paranormal event. Don’t you think if regression were provable, that someone would have taken that cool mil by now?
As for debates about consciousness such as the thread you point out, hey I’m all for that. In fact, I hold beliefs that cannot be explained by science as we know it, and I’m known to get into a long-winded midnight philosophy/sprituality debate now and again with friends. But this is GQ, not GD.
The examples you give above are not strictly anecdotal. The respective events have been measured and observed first-hand by those studying them. And while scientists cannot repeat the events (just as I cannot make a supernova into being), they can, for the most part, scientifically analyze the events, study similar future events, and build on the existing body of knowledge.
I think that what this whole discussion boils down to is that physics, especially quantum physics, can require some pretty out of the box thinking to even partially understand. Starting with the theory of general relativity, and on through quantum physics, the average layperson is not equipped with the mathematical and scientific training to grasp many concepts such as four-dimensional spacetime, non-locality, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, etc. So we realize physics concepts in whatever medium is comfortable to us. Some of us attempt to grasp these concepts in visual terms, some of us in spiritual terms, some of us in religious terms (thus Einstein’s famous quote when confronted with quantum probablity theories: “(God) does not play dice.”).
While I subjectively envision space-time as a saddle-shaped parabolic plane, I objectively know this not to be scientifically true. It is true in my mind, since that is how I “see” space-time, for lack of any significant scientific training (which I’ve probably made painfully obvious in this thread). But I objectively know that my truth is not universal. If one must visualize quantum behaviors (non-locality, waveform collapse, etc.) on a macro, spiritual scale, hey, whatever helps. But to put some kind of universal truth to it, and expect science to validate armchair theorizing, well, that’s not science.
And ** Punoqllads**, thanks for elaborating on non-locality/Bell’s Inequality. I see I had some of the concepts a bit mixed up. However, I still believe the whole particles-linked-by-a-wormhole thing, cause it sounds real cool. Why isn’t anybody researching this?
Many-worlds theory doesn’t provide any mechanisms for collapse as the defining feature of it (or more precisely Everett’s relative-state interpretaion which provided the basis for the many-worlds interpretion) is that collapse does not occur.
There are other interpretaions which provide diffrent mechanisms for collapse, the most obvious being GRW theory in which collapse happens spontaneously in a simlair manner to radioactive decay. Also, not all interpretaions are mathematically equivalent.
Decoherence (which can be viewed as an interpretion in it’s own right, but it can also be added to other interpretations to create new usually better interpretaions) explains pretty well why macroscopic objects exhibit classical behaviour.
While Bell’s inequality is associated with entangled systems, what it proves is that a local hidden variable theory cannot produce the same results as quantum mechanics.
Qunatum entanglment means basically that spatially seperated objects are part of the same quantum system. Non-loclaity is a problem for realist interpretaions (e.g. Bohm’s) in relativistic quantum mechanics.
Well I have not met the children in question, nor have I observed the dialog that goes on between them, the psychologists, and the “other” family. So I cannot vouch for their authenticity. I also have not met Dr. Stevenson who is AFAIK the most credible figure in the field. I want reincarnation to be a fact even if all we have is anecdotal evidence. Who knows, your daughter may be on to something. I once told my parents I used to be a woman. Mother thought for sure I used to be somebody she knew but it doesn’t feel right and I never gave in. Just throwing that out as the only case I can personally vouch for, even if it is anecdotal.
Very good point. I don’t know. Have to ask the kids with the supposedly confirmed past lives. I’ve never heard of the Randi Organization before the SDMB (before this thread though) so maybe they never have.
